Hi, Can you provide a patch for the SimRel build (branch "Neon.3_respin") that references the new version?
Regards, Fred On 19.04.2017 17:27, Jeff Johnston wrote: > Hi Ed, > > Linux tools spun a 5.3.1 release which now has a 2.3.1 version of docker > tooling. The Linux tools download site has update-docker-2.3.1 and > update-docker, both which have 2.3.1 versions of the docker.core plug-in > and docker feature. Not sure why you are not seeing this. > > -- Jeff J. > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com > <mailto:ed.me...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Frederic, > > There seem to have been no notes/minutes taken during the meeting: > > https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017 > <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017> > > I recall agreeing to provide steps for reproducing the problem so > that Thomas Watson could test if the wiring resolution fix he made > for Oxygen also solves the problem for Neon.3. The fact that he > encountered "the mirroring problem" didn't help in that regard: > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213 > <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213> > > In the end, he sent me a note saying (and I quote): > >> I see that now there is the same number of httpcomponents bundles >> as there was in the messed up Oxygen M6 builds. But here my back >> port of the resolver fix does not seem to have fixed the issue. >> I'm unsure if that is because it gave up with the sheer number of >> bundles or if something else is going wrong. But at this point >> the backport of the resolver fix does not seem to be the solution >> to the problem. > > I assumed (wrongly I guess) that Thomas would investigate a more > general fix to address the wiring problem. > > In the end, I also wasn't sure which version of the docker tools is > proposed for contribution to Neon.3a. I tried to search for update > sites containing it like this: > > Nothing looks like a new version of 2.3. Goodness knows where one > should find what's being proposed for contribution... > > In any case, the proposed "solution" (A) really just changes the > version of httpclient to be one that's not broken (missing > packages), but it doesn't change the wiring problem in any > fundamental way. There will still be the four versions that can all > be installed simultaneously, so we really should expect the same > wiring problem(s). In fact, I believe Oxygen M6 has effectively the > same four httpcomponents.httpclient bundle as does Neon.3, so I'm a > little suspicious whether the wiring problem is in fact really fixed > even for Oxygen. We won't know until M7 and that's a month away. > It doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings. > > So at this point it remains unclear the nature of the wiring > problem(s). Is it a bug? Is it fixable? Does the knowledge, will, > and capacity to fix it exist? > > Without a fix to the wiring problem I think we can eliminate A as a > solution, leaving B, C, and D (i.e., focus on problem avoidance > approaches). But I think if the wiring problem is a bug, it will > come back, and it will raise its ugly head again when users install > various technologies from various sources. To my thinking, fixing > the bug seems important. > > Regards, > Ed > > > On 19.04.2017 12:49, Frederic Gurr wrote: >> Hi Ed, >> >> In the last planning-council meeting you offered to evaluate if the >> fixed Linux Tools package works as expected and if there are still >> wiring issues. >> >> Can you give us an update on the current state? >> >> Regards, >> >> Fred >> >> On 31.03.2017 11:14, Ed Merks wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The original thread is fractured into many threads so its kind of >>> impossible to follow each thread with a reply but I'll try at the bottom >>> of this note, i.e., below the =========== >>> >>> But before doing that, I'd like to re-focus on the most important >>> questions: *We currently have a problem with Neon.3, will we fix it, and >>> if so how will we fix it?* >>> >>> The discussion has quickly digressed (constructively) into solving the >>> issue of how Orbit dependencies should be managed by projects and by the >>> release train. Unfortunately I see this as a world hunger issue; not >>> one that is easily addressed and I believe not one we can wait for in >>> order to solve the Neon.3 problem. Let's face it, we've not been able >>> to produce a proper Oxygen milestone in months, we still don't have one >>> now, and we won't have one until next month, we hope. >>> >>> For Neon we've done three maintenance releases. Neon.1 needed a respin >>> and Neon.3 looks to be in need of the same thing. Clearly something is >>> seriously wrong. But if we spend our time on solving the Orbit world >>> hunger issue, will we arrive at a solution in time for Oxygen, let alone >>> in time to fix Neon.3? I am very, very doubtful. >>> >>> As another data point, if I install the egg-laying-wool-milk-pig for >>> Neon.3. The following happens. I'm prompted to accept this license: >>> >>> Red Hat, Inc. licenses these features and plugins to you under >>> certain open source licenses (or aggregations of such licenses), >>> which in a particular case may include the Eclipse Public License, >>> the GNU Lesser General Public License, and/or certain other open >>> source licenses. For precise licensing details, consult the >>> corresponding source code, or contact Red Hat, Attn: General >>> Counsel, 100 East Davie St., Raleigh NC 27601 USA. >>> >>> I'm not sure how this license slipped into the release train. Aren't >>> there checks for this? (Sorry to digress, but this is also >>> unacceptable.) >>> >>> Launching the final installation comes up like this: >>> >>> Clearly a disgusting mess, but I've mentioned that before and the same >>> projects are still doing the same bad things, so we clearly all accept >>> this situation as normal. >>> >>> The most important point here is the error log (first attachment) is >>> full of exactly the problem indications (bundle wiring problems) we >>> should have expected from the Neon.3 repository's contents, if someone >>> were to install an arbitrary combination of the repository's contents. >>> It's really not so hard to test this! >>> >>> If I create the same installation with my local build of the Oomph 1.8 >>> installer---which installs my locally built version of Oomph 1.8 so the >>> Oomph setup plugins are no longer disabled because I made the >>> userstorage dependency optional and eliminated the strict <=4.4 upper >>> bound constraints on httpclient, which was such a bad idea I can almost >>> have a canary to think this done to solve a problem with no anticipation >>> of the problems it would cause---then I can visit all the preference >>> pages producing the second attached much larger log. It seems clear >>> that proper testing really doesn't happen for far too many projects on >>> the train. With distributed responsibility, no one is really >>> responsible... >>> >>> ================================== >>> >>> Orbit Issues >>> >>> 1) Respinning Linux Tools against Oxygen Mx seems to miss the point that >>> we should only distribute released versions of bundles, so no Neon >>> build should redistribute any unreleased version of anything. If a new >>> version of something is needed for security reasons or other reasons, it >>> should be released first. And doing that in a maintenance train without >>> testing the overall impact is clearly something we should never do again >>> (without waving a bunch of red flags of warning). And as Martin >>> Oberhuber asks, is nothing in place to check for this? So suppose we do >>> respin with a fixed released version, like what we have for Oxygen M6, >>> then most likely we'd still have the problems we have in Oxygen M6 so >>> we'd need a fix to the resolver in Neon. Better would seem to respin >>> with the old version(s) of the Orbit bundles, but somehow we can never >>> delete the broken version from Neon and because it has a higher version >>> number is likely to slip back in unexpected (though hopefully not, given >>> that features have pinned their bundle versions). >>> >>> 2) Don't include Orbit bundles in your project's features. Sounds like >>> a great idea, but begs endless questions, and while solving a problem >>> might well introduce more new problems than it solves. The first >>> question (as Carsten points out) is how do these things end up in a >>> repository, and if they are in a repository somehow, how are they >>> categorized? It's hard to get them in and once you do, they're >>> categorized poorly. The next question is, how do they end up in the >>> release train, if the projects that need them don't contribute them? >>> Directly from Orbit you say? But which ones should be pulled in from >>> Orbit and how is that discovered? Are those the ones the projects have >>> tested against? Then there is the question of whether an installation is >>> deterministic if the bundle version isn't pinned? It's not; it will >>> depend on what's in the repos that are available at resolve time. But >>> Gunnar argues that even packages are not deterministic, which I think is >>> false: if the feature pins the bundle version and the package requires >>> the feature, then the pinned bundle is definitely in that package. But >>> regardless, Gunnar's important point is that the runtime wiring seems >>> kind of non-determinstic, and while uses constraints might help, who the >>> heck understands those well, what tooling produces it correctly for us, >>> is that nicely integrated in PDE, and will it be properly maintained (in >>> contrast to lower bound constraints which you can pretty expect will >>> remain on whatever stale version they were initially set to). This may >>> well be the right direction in which to go, but getting there isn't >>> going to be even half the fun... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >>> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org >>> <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> >>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >>> from this list, visit >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >>> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org >> <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >> from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org > <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or > unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
